ATUL SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Atul Sharma and Shashi Sharma against the judgment dated 26.02.2000 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well as against the order dated 9.3.2000 sentencing both of them to RI for 6 years plus fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default for a further period of RI for 8 months each under Section 306 and RI for 2 years plus a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo RI for further period of 4 months under Section 498A.

(2.) THE appeal arises in the following circumstances. One Renu Sharma got married to Atul Sharma, one of the appellants herein, on 12th October, 1988. After her marriage she came to the matrimonial home at house No.F32, Turkman Road, Kamla Market, Delhi. It appears that at some later point of time they shifted their residence to Flat No.1/F, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi. On 28.1.1996 it is alleged that she doused herself with kerosene and set fire to herself. She was rushed to Noida Medicare Centre for Treatment, by Atul Kumar Sharma, her husband. There were 98% burns on her body. On 29.1.1996, at around 10:10 p.m., she succumbed to the burn injuries.

(3.) THE complaint was filed by the brother of Renu Sharma whose name was Raj Gopal Sharma. He is PW-2 in this case. The trial court has relied upon two witnesses, namely, PW-2 and the evidence of Veena Shamra, PW-1, who is the sister of the deceased. The trial court noted that the evidence of Veena Sharma and Raj Gopal Sharma established the fact that there were dowry demands and torture of Renu Sharma which ultimately led her to commit suicide. The trial court conceded that the prosecution case was based only on circumstantial evidence of dowry demand and torture and that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to the effect that it was the accused persons who abetted the suicide. However, the trial court observed that in such cases, direct evidence of abetment of suicide would hardly be available and that it is only the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.